Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2164, 1971 SCR (3) 762

Bench: Reddy, P Jaganmohan

PETITIONER:

BACHAN SINGH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1971

BENCH:

REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

BENCH:

REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

SIKRI, S.M. (CJ)

MITTER, G.K.

HEGDE, K.S.

GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:

1971 AIR 2164 1971 SCR (3) 762

ACT:

Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act (10 of 1951)-If violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) and 31(2)
of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:

In order to deal with extensive damage to property and to clear the debris and refuse caused by communal
riots in 1947 in Punjab, statutes we're enacted, giving suitable powers the last of which is the Punjab
Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1951. Under s. 2(d) of the Act the State Government declared by a
Notification that the entire area within the walled city of Amritsar to be damaged area. The Improvement
Trust formulated certain schemes which were sanctioned by the State Government. Thereafter, notice was
issued to the first petitioner to vacate the shop in his possession and to the second and third petitioners to
appear before the Land Acquisition Collector and explain the interest which they had in the, premises in their
occupation sought to be acquired.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 1

 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

In a petition under Art. 32, on the questions whether (1) the Act is violative of Art. 14, because (a) the power
to declare an area as damaged is arbitrary, and (b) the property can be acquired at the discretion of the Trust
either under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, or under the Act, compensation payable under the
form& Act being more advantageous; (2) the restrictions imposed by the Act are unreasonable and violative
of Art. 19(1 ) (f) and (g); and (3) the acquisition and compensation provisions of the Act violate Art. 31(2).

HELD : (1) There is no violation of Art. 14. (a) The purpose of the Act is for framing and executing schemes
of improvement in urban areas where damage has been caused to buildings by wholesale and serious rioting
and hence, the power conferred on the State Government to declare an area damaged area is not arbitrary,
unguided or uncanalised. If the whole of the walled city of Amritsar is a damaged area and part thereof is
equally a damaged area. Therefore, it is not difficult to determine what is damaged area and the Notification in
the present case is not vague. [773 A-D]

(b) No option is given to acquire the area either under the 1951 Act or Punjab Town Improvement Act
according to the discretion of the Improvement Trust. The 1951-Act only provides that the Trust in framing a
scheme may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in s. 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,
and that any scheme already framed under the latter Act is deemed to have been framed under 1951-Act. [771
A-B]

(2) The provisions of the Act are reasonable and are designed to serve the interest of the general public by
executing schemes in a planned manner for the improvement of the damaged areas of the city and the
restrictions imposed are protected by Art. 19(5) and (6) of the Constitution. [769 G-H]

763

(a) Persons who are affected by a scheme are given an opportunity to file their objections which have to be
given due consideration by the Improvement Trust before finalising the scheme, and by State Government
before sanctioning the scheme. They have also the right to take part in, the proceedings before the Collector in
the inquiry into claims for compensation. They are given notice of the award and are given a right to have
their objections to the award fixing the compensation or the are' I demarcated and other matters specified in s.
20 referred to a Tribunal. The award, or any order passed by the Tribunal, is deemed to be a judgment 'and
decree under the Civil Procedure Code, and affected persons have a right of appeal to the High Court and to
this Court. [770 B-F]

(b) The fact that there are some newly built buildings which are not damaged would not make the provisions
of the Act unreasonable nor justify an impediment being placed to a scheme which is designed to achieve a
social purpose and is for the public good [770 G-H]

(c) The persons in occupation of shops have been assured in writing by the Improvement Trust of alternative
accommodation and allotment of pucca shops as soon as possible. [771 H]

(3) The compensation payable is neither inadequate nor illusory but on the other hand it is not less than the
market value and may even be more. There is thus no violation of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution. [770 G 772
B] (a) The compensation payable to persons interested under the Act is more in the nature of a profit sharing
scheme in that the minimum that they would be entitled for payment is the market value of the property which
has come under the scheme and may even be more depending upon the income of the scheme and the
expenditure incurred therefore. The com- pensation is determined on principles similar to those under the
Land Acquisition Act or the Punjab Town Improvement Act. [770 B-C, H]

(b) It cannot be contended that compensation is not payable for the buildings but only for the land, because,
the definition of land under the Act is similar to that in s. 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act and is
comprehensive enough to include buildings also. [771 D]
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 2
 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

(c) The finalisation of the scheme will take time but under S. 12(2) the submission of the scheme by the Trust
is not to be later than three years. Therefore, it cannot be urged that the final compensation is not immediately
payable and that it may take several years without any payment of interest during that time. In any case, the
scheme is for the benefit of all those who have properties in the areas which are covered by the scheme and is
on a profit sharing basis. There is thus no hardship or disadvantage. [771 E-G]

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

J. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the petitioners. Bishan Nar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1.
Bishan Narain, B. Datta, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7
64

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. The three Petitioners who are residents
of Amritsar have filed this Petition under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution, challenging the Punjab Development of
Damaged Areas Act 10 of 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as being violative of Art. 14, 19 ( 1 ) (f ) & (g)
and 3 1 (2) of the Constitution of India.

The first Petitioner carries on a Bakery business in a shop in Bazar Jallianwala near Chowk Phowara of which
he is a tenant. The second Petitioner is the owner of a building consisting of a number of shops situated in
Bazar Bikanarian while the third Petitioner is a tenant in occupation of a residential house situated in Bazar
Sodhian. On 26th June 1962 the State Govt. declared by a Notification under Sec. 2(d) of the Act the entire
area within the walled city of Amritsar to be a damaged area. In pursuance of the said Notification a number
of schemes were formulated by the Improvement Trust of Amritsar. Two of such Schemes with which the
Petitioners are concerned related to ( 1 ) Chowk Phowara cum Jallianwala Bagh and (2) Ghantaghar. The
former Scheme was sanctioned by the State Govt., by a Notification dated the 17th July 1968, while the
Ghantaghar Scheme was sanctioned by Notification of the 10th October 1969. Pursuant to these Notifications
a Notice was issued on 26th November 1969 to the first Petitioner whose shop is covered by the Chowk
Phowara cum Jallianwala Bagh Scheme to vacate the premises in his possession. A notice was also given to
Petitioners 2 & 3 in respect of the buildings owned or occupied by them in the Ghantaghar area Scheme,
asking them to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector-the 3rd Respondent and explain the interest
which they have in the respective premises sought to be acquired. It is contended by the Petitioners :-(1) (a)
that Sec. 2(d) offends Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the damaged area as defined under that Section
furnishes no guidelines, is arbitrary, unguided, un-canalised and discriminatory inasmuch- as it enables the
State. Government to pick and choose any area and declare it to be damaged area even though it may not at all
be damaged while at the same time leaving out other areas similarly situated which are either not damaged or
really damaged; that in any case the Notification under Sec. 2(d) is vague and therefore bad, (b) that the
provisions regarding compensation are also discriminatory because property can be acquired at the discretion
of the Improvement Trust either under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 or under the Act even though
the compensation payable under the provision of the former Act are advantageous as compared to those
payable under the Act; (2) that the compensation provisions in the Act violate Art. 31 (2) as it stood at the
time when

765

the Act was passed in 1951; (3) that the Acquisition under the Act cannot be said to be for a public purpose as
not a single pie comes from the Govt. or is contributed by the local authority; and (4) that the impugned
Notification sanctioning the two schemes is also void because once the Govt. had exercised the power by
sanctioning Dharam Singh Market Scheme, the power ,of sanction under Section 5 is exhausted.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 3

 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

In order to appreciate the several contentions it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act but before
we do so it may be useful also to briefly set out the legislative history of the enactment and the purpose for
which it was enacted. Prior to the partition of India there were, serious communal rioting in March 1947 in
some parts of Punjab, particularly in Amritsar These riots as well as those which subsequently took place on
the eve of partition caused extensive damage to property and left a lot of debris and refuse which had to be
cleared. The Governor of Punjab who had by a proclamation under Sec. 93 of the Govt. of India Act 1935
assuming to himself all powers vested by and under the said Act passed the Punjab Damaged Areas Act 11 of
1947 on 9th May 1947. The Act so passed would only have force for two years from the date on which the
proclamation ceases to have effect unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by an Act of the appropriate
legislature. The rule of the Governor came to an end on 15th August 1947 and consequently the 1947 Act
would cease to have, force on 15th August 1949. It appears from the statement of objects and reasons of the
1947 Act that Government finding that it had not adequate power to deal with dangerous or damaged
buildings summarily, or to deal satisfactorily with debris, the materials of damaged or fallen buildings or to
control salvage of property and its disposal or to indemnify teh Crown or the Local authorities or their
employees for the action already taken in respect of the aforesaid matters, wanted to arm itself by emergency
changes in the Laws regulating the administration of Urban areas and to provide in an orderly way for the
custody and disposal of debris and salved property. The substantive portions of the Act were meant to come
into force in any area to which their application may be considered desirable by the Provincial Government,
on such date as may be notified. Under Sec. 2(c) the Damaged area was defined in much the same way as is
defined in Sec. 2(b) of the present Act. It conferred power on the Provincial Government to declare by
Notification any area or any portion thereof to be a damaged area. Under this provision the whole of the
walled city of Amritsar was declared to be damaged area. As this. Act would have lapsed by the 15th August
1949, the East Punjab Damaged Areas Act 10 of 1949 was enacted which embodied practically the same
provisions as

766

were contained in the 1947 Act. Under this Act no fresh Notification in respect of the area Notified in the
1947 Act was issue& and though Sections 1 to 3 of the 1949 Act came into, force immediately after its
publication the other provisions of that Act were to come into force in any urban area as the State Govt. by
Notification may appoint. These provisions however did not meet the need for planned development of the
damaged areas had consequently the Damaged Area Ordinance 16 of 1950 was promulgated by the Governor
of Punjab on the 1st December 1950. The Ordinance was replaced by the present Act.

Though under sub. sec. (2) of Section 1 the Act extends to the whole of Punjab sub-sec. (3) was to come into
force at once within the local area of Amritsar Improvement Trust and any other such areas as the Govt. may
by Notification specify. Sec. 2(d) defines damaged area to be an area which the State Govt. by Notification
may declare to be a damaged area and includes the area already notified by the East Punjab Damaged Area
Act 1949. Section 2(e) defined 'The Improvement Trust' or 'Trusts' as an Improvement Trust constituted under
the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 while Land under Sec. 2(f) include$ benefits to arise out of land or
things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Sec. 3 empowers the
Trust to frame a Scheme or Schemes for the development of the damaged area providing for all or any of the
matters mentioned under Sec. 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 and any Scheme already framed
or sanctioned in respect- of a damaged area under the Provisions of that Act which shall be deemed to have
been framed or sanctioned under the Act. Sections 4 & 5 then provide for the publication of the Scheme
giving certain specified details calling for objections to the Scheme within a period prescribed. After
considering the objections, if any, which may, be received by the Trust during the period prescribed the Trust
may approve the scheme with or without modification and thereafter submit it to the State Govt. with a
statement of objections received by it. The State Govt. may modify the scheme if necessary and notify it either
in original or as modified. The Scheme so published shall be deemed to be the sanctioned scheme; such
publications being conclusive evidence of the Scheme having been duly framed and sanctioned. Under Sec. 6
the Trust shall within 3 months from the date of the publication of the Scheme udder Sub- Section 3 of
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 4
 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

Section 5 apply to the' Collector for acquisition and if considered necessary for taking immediate possession
of the whole or part of any damaged area comprised in the Scheme and on such application being made the
Collector may forthwith deliver or caused to be delivered to it the possession of the damaged area. On such
order being made by the Collector the damaged area vests in the Trust free from all encumbrances

767

but subject to payment in due course of compensation by the Trust in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. The occupier of any building or any part of the building was to be, given at least 2 weeks notice or such
longer notice as it considered reasonably sufficient to enable him to remove his movable property from such
building without unnecessary inconvenience to him. Section 7 empowers the Collector, if he is himself a
Magistrate and if not to apply to a Magistrate to remove obstruction and to deliver possession of the land to
the Improvement Trust. Sec. 8 provides for marking and measuring. Sec. 9 requires the Collector to cause
notices giving particulars as required under sub-sec. (2) inviting claims lo be made to him for compensation.
Sec. 1 1 requires the Collector to make an enquiry into the objections and claims made pursuant to the notice
issued under sub-sec. 2(b) of Sec. 9, and to determine: (a) the true area of the land;

(b) the market value, at the time of publication of the Scheme under Section 4(1), of-

(i) the land,

(ii) all material standing on them, and

(iii) any sources of income derived from the land.

(c) The value of plots, the material thereon and other sources of income remaining outstanding as notified by
the State Government under Section 12; and

(d) the extent of the interest of every person claiming compensation, and the market value of the interest of
such persons at the time of publication of the scheme under Section 4(1).

Under Sec. 12 the Trust shall as soon as possession of the land comprised in the sanctioned scheme is
delivered to it proceed to execute the scheme-but not later than 3 years of the sanction of the scheme submit
for the scrutiny of the State Govt. an accurate statement which shall contain the following particulars

(a) the actual cost of the scheme;

(b) the income derived from the scheme;

(c) the particulars and the estimated value of the plots and any material thereon that remain to be sold; and

(d) the estimated value of the other sources of Income from the scheme which remain out- 5-Ll 100SupCI/71
standing.

768

On the scheme being submitted to the State Govt., it shall after necessary scrutiny notify the details of he
aforesaid statement.

The manner in which compensation is to be computed and the award to be passed by the Collector and the
payment of com- pensation are provided for in Sec. 13 and 16. Section 14 provides for the Collector's award
to be filed and Sec. 15 empowers Trust either to notify its intention to make a reference to the Tribunal in the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 5
 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

manner stated in Sec. 19 against the amount awarded by the Collector or place the amount awarded at his
disposal. Sections 13 and 16 which deal with the calculation of the total compensation and its payment are as
follows

Sec. 13 : (1) After the statement has been notified under the preceding section, the Collector shall make an
award apportioning compensation in the manner hereinafter prescribed, among all the persons known or be-
lieved to be interested in the land, of whom or of whose claims he has information, whether or not they have

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the total compensation
payable for any land acquired under this Act shall be the difference between-

(a) the income of the Scheme, which shall include the estimated value of the plots and the material thereon
that remain to be sold and the other sources of income from the scheme which remain outstanding; and

(b) the cost of the scheme, as notified in the statement under Sec. 12.

(3) subject to the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950, or any other law on the
subject for the time being in force, the compensation awarded in respect of the structures, if any, standing on
the land comprised in the scheme shall be payable to the persons known or believed to be interested in those
structures according to their respective interests as determined by the Collector under See. 11.

Explanation: In computing such

compensation, the Collector shall assess the market value of the structures at the time of delivery of
possession of the land to the Trust and deduct from such value the cost of demolishing them said removing the
material from the site.

7 69

(4) The total compensation, less any deductions that may be necessary on account of the amounts, if any,
payable under sub-section (3), shall be paid to the various persons interested in proportion to the interests hold
by them as determined by the Collector under sec. 1 1 (c).

Provided that the amount paid to any person shall not be less than the market value of his, interest as
determined by the Collector under Sec. 11 (1) minus the cost of demolition and removal incurred by the Trust.

Sec. 16: From the amount placed at his disposal under section 15 the Collector shall, according to the award,
tender payments to the persons interested and make payments to those who agree to receive the same, with or
without protest.

Sections 19 to 21 provide that the Trust or persons interested who receive compensation under protest, may
require the Collector to make a reference to the Tribunal in respect of the measurement of the land, amount of
compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, its apportionment among persons interested. A statement of
the case is also required to be drawn up by the Collector on reference, and a notice to be given by the Tribunal
to the persons interested. Under Sec. 23 the Tribunal has power to either maintain or modify the award passed
by the Collector and order payment to the persons entitled to it, provided that it shall not question the amounts
notified under Sec.

12. The award passed by the Tribunal is deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds therefore a
Judgment within the meaning of sub-section (2) and (9) of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code; and every
award and order of the Tribunal is enforceable by the Court of the Senior Sub Judge within the local limits of
its jurisdiction as if it were a decree made or passed by it. While Section 24 makes provision for the award of
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 6
 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

costs, Section 25 does not require the Trust to pay interest on any amount awarded as compensation and
tendered in accordance with the order of the Collector.

The provisions of the Act it may be noticed clearly indicate that they are reasonable and are designed to serve
the interest of the general public namely to execute schemes in a planned manner for the improvement of the
damaged areas of the city of Amritsar. They do not in any way violate the provisions of Art. 19(1) (f) & (g).
This Court has in no uncertain terms laid down the test for ascertaining reasonableness of the restrictions on
the rights guaranteed under Art. 19 to be determined by a reference to the nature of the right said to have been
infringed, the purpose of the restrictions sought to be imposed, the urgency of the evil and the necessity

770

to rectify or remedy it-all of which has to be balanced with the social welfare or social purpose sought to be
achieved. The right of the individual has therefore to be sublimated to the larger interest of the general public,
Applying this test it will be seen that persons who are affected by the Scheme are given an opportunity to fide
their objections which have to be given due consideration by the Trust before finalising the scheme. Their
objections are further considered by the Govt. before sanctioning the scheme. They have also a right to take
part in the proceedings before the Collector in the enquiry into claims, for compensation, and are given notice
of the award made by the Collector. The compensation payable to them is. more in the nature of a profit
sharing scheme in that the minimum that they would be entitled for payment is the market value of the
property which has come under the scheme and may even be entitled to, something more depending upon the
income of the scheme and the expenditure incurred therefore. The total amount of compensation for any land
so acquired under Sec. 13 (2) is the difference between the income of the scheme which is to include the
estimated value of the buildings and the material thereon that remains to be sold, the profits on the plots sold
and the other source of the income of the scheme as notified in the statement under Sec. 12, subject as we
have pointed out earlier to the compensation in any case not being less than the market value of his interest as
determined by the Collector under Sec. 11(d) minus the cost of the demolition and removal incurred by the
Trust. The persons interested are further given a right to have their objections to the award fixing
compensation, the area of the land demarcated and other matters as specified in Sec. 20 referred to the
Tribunal. The award or any order passed by the Tribunal being deemed to be a Judgment and a decree under
the Civil Procedure Code, the affected persons have therefore right of appeal provided under that Code, which
will give the man opportunity to go up to the High Court and even to the Supreme Court. The fundamental
rights to acquire, hold or dispose property or to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under
Art. 19 (1) (f) & (g) is subject to the restrictions contained in clauses (5) & (6) of the said Article. The Act in
our view complies substantially if not abundantly with the restrictions imposed on the ,exercise of the said
fundamental rights.

It is then contended that some buildings in these areas are newly build or that some of them are not damaged
and hence the restriction is unreasonable but in our view this alone does not in any way justify an impediment
being placed for a scheme which is designed to achieve a social purpose and is for the public good The
compensation payable under the Act is 'also determined on principles similar to those under the Land
Acquisition Act or the Punjab Town Improvement Act. There is however no justification

771

in the submission that option is given to acquire the area either under the Act or under the Punjab Town
Improvement Act according to the discretion of the Trust which is without guide-lines and arbitrary. This
argument is devoid of force because what Section 3 empowers is that the Trust in framing a scheme may
provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in Section 28 of the Punjab Town'- Improvement Act. It
further declares that any scheme already framed under the Punjab Town Improvement Act is deemed to have
been framed under the Act. This is far from saying that a discretion is given to the Trust to frame a Scheme
either under the provisions of the Act or under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, or that
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 7
 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

the provisions of the latter Act are more advantageous in the matter of compensation or in respect of any other
matter. The section merely incorporates by reference some of the provisions of the other Act and is also an
enabling one. There is also no validity in the contention that compensation is not payable for the buildings but
only for the land because the definition of land under the Act is similar to that under Sec. 3(a) of the Land
Acquisition Act and is comprehensive enough to include buildings also. It is next urged that compensation so
determined is not im- mediately payable because under the provisions of the Act the final compensation will
only be determined after the scheme is submitted and sanctioned by the Govt. which may take several years
and also there is a prohibition against payment of interest on the amount of compensation unlike that provided
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is true that the finalisation of the scheme will take time
but under the provisions of sub-see (2) of Sec. 12 the submission of the Scheme by the Trust is not to be later
than- 3 years which does not mean necessarily that it will take 3 years and may even take less if not obstructed
by persons affected. In any case as we have said where the scheme is for the benefit of all those who have
properties in the areas which are covered by the scheme and is on a profit sharing basis, there is no hardship or
disadvantage- particularly when the Petitioners as we shall point out presently are assured of, alternative
accommodation and the allotment of newly built shops under the scheme. Though the actual schemes are not
before us, it is stated in the counter of Respondent No'. 2 the Chairman of the Amritsar Improvement Trust
that the Petitioners have been assured in writing by the Trust that, allotment of pacca shops as soon as the
commercial building in Dharam Singh Market which is being constructed at an estimated cost of Rs. 26 lakhs
is completed. In fact Ahata Bishan Dass and the adjoining scheme areas are ready. In the meanwhile many of
the persons who have applied

772

for alternate accommodation have for the time being been ac- commodated by the Trust in the stalls recently
set up in Kesribagh in the immediate vicinity of the Trust office. Though the Petitioners 1 and 3 have not
applied for alternative accommodation they have been assured that they will be treated alike with-the said
displaced occupiers of shops in case they apply for alternative accommodation. In so far as the petitioner No.
2 is concerned it is alleged that he is not an occupier of the building, as such there is no question of an
alternative accommodation being given to him but this matter will have to be decided under the provisions of
the Act. Be that as it may in fact the Chairman of the Amritsar Improvement Trust has appended to the
counter a letter addressed to one Inder Singh Arora who has a shop in Bazar Jallianwala in Amritsar and who
is also similarly situated like the petitioners. In that letter of 6-1-1970 he has stated as follows

"Reference your discussion with/ the undersigned,

It has been decided to offer you accommodation on the lines of commitments made by the Trust in High Court
in letters Patent Appeal No. 187 of 1969 (Mulk Raj & Others Vs. Trust) i.e. as soon as commercial buildings
in Dharam Singh Market, Ahata Bishan Dass and the adjoining Scheme areas are ready,,/ the Trust would give
preference to the oustees from the scheme area (Chowk Phowara to Jallianwala Bagh in Main Bazar and,
other Markets) who are 5 years old to occupy shops of their choice at the rent which is fixed by the Trust for
the particular shop. The rent fixed by the Improvement Trust may be the highest that can be fetched in the
Market. At that rent the tenants may exercise their option to get tenancy rights in preference to others and in
case they refuse to take the shops on rent so fixed by the Trust, the same would be given to others". These
assurances are commitments and would equally apply to the Petitioners. We cannot envisage a more
reasonable and fair treatment accorded to the persons who have been displaced as a result of the Improvement
Schemes. The petitioners in spite of all these assurances have taken an unreasonable attitude in litigating and
holding up a scheme that is beneficial for all those affected in the damaged areas by the two impugned
schemes. in our view the compensation payable is neither inadequate nor illusory, but on the other hand is not
less than the market value and may even be more. There is therefore no violation of Art. 31(2) of the
Constitution.

773
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 8
 Bachan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 18 February, 1971

The further contention that Sec. 2(d) is discriminatory of vague in that it does not indicate the criteria for
determining what is a damaged area appears to us to be without force. We have seen the purpose for which the
Act was passed by the Legislature which leaves little doubt that it was the damage caused by wholesale and
serious rioting to buildings in certain urban ,areas in the State of Punjab and particularly in the area within the
walled city of Amritsar which-necessitated the framing and execution of schemes of improvement in those
areas. In so far as the present petition is concerned it relates to two of the areas within the walled city of
Amritsar. It is therefore not difficult to determine what is a damaged area for, if the whole of the walled city
of Amritsar is a damaged area, any part thereof is equally a damaged area. There is nothing arbitrary nor is the
power conferred on the State Govt., unguided or un- canalised nor for that matter can it be said that the
Notification issued on the 26th June 1962 is vague. In so far as the contention that the impugned Notification
sanctioning the two schemes are void as the power under Sec. 5 of the Act was exhausted because the Govt.
had already exercised its power when it sanctioned Dharam Singh Market Scheme, the learned Advocate has
(not chosen to address any arguments or to substantiate that contention. As such we find it unnecessary to deal
with it.

In our view none of the objections are sustainable either on the ground of discrimination under Art. 14 or on
the scheme are being unreasonable or not in the interest of general public violating Art. 19 (1) (f) & (g) nor on
the ground of the compensation payable being inadequate or insufficient so as to infringe the guarantee under
Art. 31(2) of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

V.P.S. Petition dismissed.

774

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/909940/ 9